Leftforge Doesn't Understand the Second Amendment...

So I'm projecting by suggesting that the Founding Fathers might have been aware that firearms tech would continue to advance? Is it really that hard to believe? They were pretty smart you know. I hear one of them even invented electricity.

Go back and re-read the thread, they did say that, idiot.

I'm pretty sure if they had any idea that their little start-up agrarian and hunting-based country would evolve into a world power with the highest per-capita gun death rate among the industrialized nations, they'd have worded that "militia" phrase a little more carefully.

So which one do you want to be - Dumb or Dumber?

And one of the lowest gun death rates in the Western hemisphere.

They also kept pushing firearm innovations, founding the Springfield arsenal which played a large role in our industrial revolution. They introduced interchangeable parts, gauges for parts, sophisticated lathe and milling equipment, and by 1819 were producing an advanced breech loader (the 1819 Hall, patented in 1811), which was probably the best rifle produced prior to the Civil War innovations.



The tip up breech allows the Hall to be loaded as if it was a short barrel muzzle loading pistol, giving over twice the rate of fire of any muzzle-loading rifle. It was patented just 20 years after the passage of the Bill of Rights. Congress issued them to the Army and awarded some to civilians for heroism during the War of 1812. Those are worth a fortune.

And of course George Washington was almost shot by British snipers using the innovative Ferguson breech loading rifle in the Revolutionary War.

Not necessarily. I grew up in a liberal state; I've never hunted; I have no particular affection for guns; I think the folks who refuse to set foot in a restaurant that won't let them carry are kind of pathetic; and when I was growing up, my mom had a bumper sticker on her car that said "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will shoot their kids accidentally."

I also think it's perfectly clear that, the way the 2nd is written, the right is independent of the militia and the militia clause is only an explanation.

As a former journalist who has published plenty of news to the internet, which wasn't around when the 1st Amendment was written, I'm not wild about that precedent.

^Point taken but, yanno, unless we find ourselves living in a Fahrenheit 451 dystopia, I can still write in longhand, and Solzhenitzen smuggled his work out of the gulag on cigarette paper.

Besides, how many times have your words shot you in the foot or killed a three-year-old?

Yes, to you. Do you at all get that such a statement is an opinion?

Which happens to also be the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Heller v DC.

That doesn't/shouldn't carry much weight with those who think SCOTUS illegally "legislates from the bench" and/or is very fallible/corrupt, because of the way they've ruled on shit like the recent Marriage Equality issue, or Roe v Wade, etc.

I was not the one who said it with no idea what it means. You also have not said what it means. You can type in all caps, but you are still full of shit. Dude, you cannot comprehend it's meaning. If you would like to address that claim please do show us I am wrong. BTW that has nothing to do with your attempt to reverse it. You do not and have never shown an inkling of comprehension of what that means. It is not my fault you thought that little scheme was going to work, and I proved my point quite easily that the founding fathers did not want guns for everyone everywhere. There is no universal second amendment. It has always had restrictions. No matter who you bring up at that time it will be the same because they did not want blacks or slaves owning guns.

I made my argument and backed it up with logic. I used history to back my point while explaining it. I have no purpose to explain the argument you made and have no clue about. Explaining your argument is not my job you lackwitted fool. Again, thank you for proving why you are a federal fuck up, and please do blow your top some more.

No, I would have to wear my shit kickers. Do you know what large size custom made mary janes cost? Like I am going to dirty them on some craven cowards pissing themselves in my house. Believe me, it would not have been the first time I have stared down a weekend warrior with a gun. I am far above your abilities, so please do not assign your inability to me. If you want to believe in the bravery of people cowering in fear, please do feel free. Not to mention there is a reality due to their shaking and adrenaline even if they did shoot out of complete fear their target is the safest thing in the room. I have seen enough of general people to know their capabilities. You are not impressive, and when you are not struck by fear of their weapon you get obedient. That is because all of their courage is caught up in the weapon, and not themselves. You add to that the fact that people who are about killing shoot first. If i am alive within a second of them seeing me, they are going to have my bootprints on their ass.

It is a skill you do not seem to know anything about.

Maybe. But that's not the same as saying that the 2nd Amendment was only meant to protect the right to own guns that were available at the time that it was written.

Not all of us are as big a badass as you.

That is for sure. Still, I am not sure why you are so worried about it. It should mean about as much to you as anyone else who you will probably never meet or deal with. Just as your disbelief means little to me or what I do. Don't worry, someday you will have enough self confidence that my words on this screen will not worry you so and you can get back to the point.

What disbelief, what worry, and what point?

Like most fish you have no idea what it is that hooked you. Still, if your purpose was to kiss my ass you should be well aware I have very little respect for things that slurp my shit. Now do you have a point to make, or do you need a little more abuse so you can finish off spanking to me?

No point. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't be able to take on an entire gang of armed assholes if I was armed. You could do it with your feet. Kudos to you. But you aren't me.

Actually, you would be amazed at what you could do to scared people cowering in a hole. The only difference between me and you in said situation is confidence and experience. Confidence probably being the most important if you are quick witted. It is like most skills. Most people have their own level of ability, but if you never develop it or employ it you do not know how good you can be at it. I did not say you were unable to accomplish it, you did. I would think that if you were exposed to certain things you would recognize how to do stuff like that and on some level be able to do it, perhaps even better than I could. But you have not done much related to it to understand it. The other thing is most people are not trained to resist it, and in fearful moments they become very easy to command. Actually people scared and under attack are very easy to start commanding around and to put yourself in a superior position. The only real danger is them getting a jump scare and firing off a shot, and even that I have experience in avoiding.

This is why when you hear of people who can command troops very easily because people just follow them it is true. I never thought it would be me either until I learned. I can rally people, command them, and even stare people into submission. I too would not have believed it until I had seen it for myself. But it is out there, and it is possible. When you know what you are doing the gun doesn't matter. People with guns are not scary anymore. It also helps that I have been held up at gunpoint twice so the sight of a gun facing me is not as shocking anymore.

You misunderstand me. I've had guns pointed at me before and lived to tell about it. Several times in Memphis, TN, and once in Cairo, Egypt. I'm just saying that I almost certainly wouldn't be able to take out an entire gang of armed people even if I were armed myself. You're saying that you could take them all out with your feet. I son't say otherwise, because I don't know what mad skillz you have, but I'm better at shooting than kicking.

I am not saying take them out, I am saying kick them out. There is a difference in telling someone who has bunkered down to avoid a missile to get the hell out, and shooting them. And yes there is a way to kick them in the ass on their way out that would keep them from shooting you. Now if you want to talk taking them out, that would depend on a number of things. Still, if it is in a warzone and they were huddled for cover in my garage and I did not want them there I could take them out without a gun, not with my feet. You are still making a different issue. Like I was also saying, you could probably do it also. I have a gift for flying under the radar and doing ambushes, and perhaps you do also, but most people could accomplish taking out a clusterfuck in their garage if you were in a warzone where you would be prepared for such an event with some IEDs or a gun or two.

Also, I do have familiarity with close range shooting and expected response from people. In the scenario I would be good for at least 4 kills before return fire with a gun. That is considering the people were hunkered down to avoid a missile attack from elsewhere, the current design of the garage, and the fact they would not be opposing me the moment I started the killing. Considering I would have a plan for my next cover step and they would be surprised and doing their best on the fly to establish cover I would have a major advantage even up to about 6 to 10.

This is scenario driven also. There are variables that would alter the effectiveness I would have both to my advantage and against it. If it were my house most would be to my advantage as I do have experience with how to use cover effectively and knowledge of the angles of fire available to me on my property. You would have similar advantages, but you do not seem to know it, and you have not fully practiced it. Still, on your property you would hold a strategic advantage that even many green combatants can take advantage of that would give you an edge that could overcome a couple of people and being outgunned.

And I'm sure it'd be such a shocker for you to know that people would be in favor of marriage equality, reproductive rights, AND the right to keep and bear arms.

Yeah...No. A gang of armed people in my garage would probably kill me. I'd just run away.

It really does depend what they are there for which is why the initial idea has so many potential responses. Perhaps those armed guys in your garage trying to bunker down against missile fire are on your side? Maybe you want to let them stay? Their purpose was never really established well. Getting away might be a very valid response if the area was about to be hit by a missile, and considering how american houses are built. I figured the reason I would be opposing them being there would be because of the damage that would be done to my house by the missile. Let me give the exact scenario.

I am concerned with my house and not familiar with either side of the attack since that was never defined. Given that I have some time to do something more than just take cover I would come in quietly making sure they notice me and make myself unthreatening. I would then tell them to find another place to hide or else I will expose them. Being that they would make some noise killing me and alert the attackers to their location, or even just the commotion would take them off guard from their bigger threat they are most likely not going to shoot. The only problem would arise when they first see me if they have panic fire, but given they are hunkering down and not returning fire to the other enemy they are probably already in identify mode so only the really green would jump and fire.

I know how people are when they are jittery and under fire. I am well practiced in being behind enemy lines (In a conflict on american soil). Unless i was on the front lines I would actually consider a gun a problem. But again, that is because I have experience you do not, and I am in no way saying it is something another person could not do as many people do it.

I'd still run away.

I realise that your paintball experience trumps my actual firearms training, but I'd still run away.

Not even a little bit shocking. There are, however, still a shitload of people who don't accept them all, but are more than happy to invoke SCOTUS when it suits them, only to denounce it when it doesn't. There are plenty of people here, who will defend something with the idea that SCOTUS ruled for it, then, in another debate, will hypocritically turn-about and denounce the very same institution as horrific and not to be trusted, whenever it happens to rule against one of the individual's pet causes.

One of the reasons I would try other methods would also be because I am not as comfortable with using a firearm. It is even to the extent that in certain situations I might actually chose to use paintballs. I would be good enough in the small area to chose where I shot. Yes, that would mean I would go for eyes and ears. Even if they had protective goggles the paint would hinder their sight. The high ROF, capacity, and the pain would be useful at close range. It is just because I know the effectiveness of a PB gun that I would b e able to launch an effective assault on a much more heavily armed person at range. If I got the drop on someone they would be hit with appx. 10 paintballs in rapid succesion before they even could contemplate moving. I am just playing with an example here for fun so bear with me. The first three balls would hit the open neck area. There is enough exposed even in good tack gear where that is going to hurt and immediately cause an interruption in consciousness. The target is either going to look away from the onslaught, or they are going to look for a shot at it. Either way there are still 5 balls in the air leading in the obvious way the body will move. An interesting thing will alos happen here. The angle that the paintballs will be flying in at will be at a weak point in goggle protection. It would actually be better to not have goggles on for the first few hits as the paint will pop or explode into sharp gelatin fragments and stingy paint and get in his eyes because the skin will fall back from the goggle seal and that is immediate. So even if your neck is protected the paint will be able to get in your eyes due to the skin's elasticity which you cannot change. I know this to be fact because it was my job to know weak points of paintball protective gear. I know paint stings, and the shells from the balls are hard like eggshells until water hits them. Oh, and depending on the side I am on if the target has some sort of mic on I have just ripped it to peices or munged it up with paint.


I explained all of that for fun, and to show that a firearm does not mean winner. I love being outgunned. I play rabbit run all the time with regular people. I would have to apply thought to adapt to live fire situations, but I could. Things like the "aura" of command actually exist in a way and can be used upon people. I suppose it is like conning people or the type of suggestion performers use.

Does that make a SCOTUS ruling less right?

So you think if you had a fully automatic paintball gun with an aimpoint sight and laser, and I had a butter knife, you'd win?